IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01278-RM-NRN

DAVEON ARTEZ ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL ELDER, and CY GILLESPIE,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (ECF No. 25) to grant Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22). For the reasons below, the Court accepts and adopts the Recommendation, and it is incorporated into this Order by reference. See

(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. (See ECF No. 25 at 15-16.) The deadline for responding to the Recommendation has come and gone without a response from any party. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991). As outlined in the magistrate judge’s Recommendation, Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se in this matter, alleges that he twice contracted Covid-19 while he was a pretrial detainee being held at the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center. He failed to file a Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Although Defendants’ sought dismissal on several grounds, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiffs requests for injunctive relief became moot once he was transferred to another facility. The magistrate judge further determined that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation, so the individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. And finally, the magistrate judge determined that the lack of an underlying constitutional violation by the individual Defendants barred Plaintiffs municipal liability claims. The Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and finds that the magistrate judge’s analysis is thorough and sound with respect to why this case should be dismissed in its entirety. See Gallegos v. Smith,

, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge’s work in the absence of any objection). Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 25) and GRANTS the Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22), and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 4th day of February, 2022. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge